My Fing ID

1000 times this. The Track IR adds so much depth to a game that uses it. I literally cannot play simulations that don't use it. It's that important. While you're at it you should download Rise of Flight (it's free). Nothing like using the Track IR to find the enemy, keep your eye on him while you get in position, and line up your gunsight all with your head, just like you would IRL. Very immersive. As for using it in Arma on the ground, well it's nice but you already control your view with the mouse so it seems redundant outside of vehicles. That said it is nice to be able to go in one direction and still look around, and in vehicle it's a big help.

I like the rag doll; really feels like I've taken down the enemy. My only complaint with it is how they drop their weapon; it simply detaches from the model and falls. The biggest things I'd like to see though are: 1) Injuries that take people out of the fight. Lets face it no matter how many times I shoot your foot you're probably not going to die. My go unconscious, but one thing that I find a constant annoyance is that it seems the second the enemy is out of action they're always dead. It was one of the things I really appreciated with Swat 3. 2) Another thing I really appreciated with Swat 3 was bullet holes being placed where you shot the enemy. We see them on buildings and such, but the enemy always gets the same blood effects regardless of where you hit them. I could see a standard blood effect for things like grenades though. 3) Of course explosives bring me to dismemberment. While I won't hold my breath for any of these changes I did like that a casualty system was put into Arma II. It seemed a bit ridged and odd (I remember hitting enemies with a burst from a machinegun and they'd just flip into casualty mode) but it was an interesting addition. That flip to casualty mode gives me a thought too; give each limb and trunk shots different animations. Also be nice if the casualties went to find cover so their buddies or they themselves could bandage up. As is I see the enemy bandage in the open all the time (I know, alpha :) ). All in all though absolutely cannot wait for the full Arma III experience. This just keeps getting better and better, and no matter how much I may bitch about unrealistic missions, I will constantly recommend this series to anyone who's interested in a realistic war game. So many great experiences. Also someone said something about flipping death animations and then going ragdoll, I dunno. If you're running and you're hit in the head you're going down exactly as you were when you got shot. No weird animation, you're just going to drop. Also bullets aren't going to push someone around, they just don't have the mass. That said injury animations, I'd say yes. Someone gets shot in the chest and grabs at that spot, AI then says 'find cover' and that's what it does. I'd even be down for the weapon flying out of a soldiers hands in the case of explosions and such. Then again if you have it attached properly it's not going anywhere (well short of gear ripping but really how far do we want to go?).

Haven't tried the new recoil yet. I admit there could be some fixes to automatic weapons fire maybe, like an AK on full auto standing. However from my personal experience, like the above said if you are braced correctly an M4/M16 will fall right back on target after you fire. Seriously it's like a half second or something and you're back to basically where you were. Even standing with my AK it's pretty much right back on when fired single fire. With the M249 and M240B in the prone I could lay a 5-7 round burst and be on target. They don't jump much when you're on the ground which is pretty well simulated in this game. Hell 1 round with the 240B at 800 meters is actually really accurate, especially with that scope (can't remember the name but it's the big fat one that's in AO). Anyways I hope they didn't fuck it up because with the way I was playing things seemed pretty on. BTW Zarcowi, however you spell that, the terrorist in Iraq that got shot is the only guy I've seen shoot a 249 standing and have any real accuracy. I tried it once and I was floating up real quick. Army doesn't really train for that kind of thing (or burst from M16/m4 oddly enough).

I'll have to try that out. I've got a X52 that I'm thinking about turning into a 'collective' after DSC a10 comes out (and that wonderfully expensive A10 controller). I saw a video where someone strapped a stick to the throttle and had a keypad at the end, looks like a good deal lol.

Haven't tried but I'd guess hit the gun site view and hit N or look on your scroll menu. Cool feature. It was this, PAQ4s, and the Bradley that really sold me on AO.

The big problem, atleast with the helicopters, is that they fly like cars. You have to increase the throttle deadzone on your aircraft because it's either up, floating, or down with no inbetween. I really don't like flying in this game, which is a shame because the helicopters are well modeled and work well with the TrackIR. Be nice if they spent a bit on changing the flight engine. A little attention could go a long way. Then again this is mostly a combined arms sim/game, so it's more about what pieces are where than how each piece is controlled.

If you don't have Arma2 get both. It's not that much more and you'll get Russian and US Marine units as well as 2 other maps. Oh and more fake country units too which can always be fun to pit against eachother.

The post above me spells it out pretty well. Say what you will but in the US Army zero and elevation/range are two entirely different things. Since we're simulating the US Army, getting these terms right should matter. I'll admit I haven't played with guns with civilians, it's always my Army buddies, but I've never heard of adjusting a range control as zeroing a weapon. It's entirely different. Here's the M16/M4 iron sights for example: OK, so here's what's going on. That top knob is to adjust the rear sight left to right. This is done while zeroing and wouldn't be touched in the field (unless you really wana throw your shots off when the wind goes down). The wheel under that (set to 'z' for zero in the picture) is the range/elevation control. This is not used during zeroing (despite what some idiot tried to tell me) but is used in the field. Rather than use this control the front sight post of the weapon is raised and lowered to make up and down adjustments while zeroing. The 'z' indicates the weapon is set to be zeroed at 25m. Basically it allows you to shoot targets at 25m and be set to hit targets at 300m-800m IIRC. I don't know, I never went past '3' but you'd set the sight to that '8/3' mark (800m/300m) after zeroing so that when you went to the range to qualify you'd hit your targets. If you kept it on 'z' then your shot elevation would be wrong and you'd miss, much like if you had set the control to '4' or '5'. In any case my point, and the point of others, is that zero and range/elevation adjustments mean two entirely different things in the US Army. If I told someone in the field to zero their weapon to 400m they'd ask why I'm having them zero their weapon in the middle of a fire fight. What I need to say is adjust range to 400m. That's going to get them to roll that wheel to '4' and return fire rather than sit there looking dumbfounded and wondering how to zero their rifle to 400m. It's just like how the Army tells people not to call a rifle a gun. They have different meanings. Civilian side you can call anything a gun, or weapon, hell you can call it a rubber duck and it does't matter. However in the Army if you yell back to your squad and say "get that gun up here" you're not looking for rifles or pistols, you're looking for a machine gun. The military teaches people to be very specific on these terms because the last thing you want is miscommunication under pressure.

This is all very confusing. Reminds me of back in the Army when some idiot tried to get my to zero my weapon (M4) by changing range (thus raising the rear aperture) rather than the front sight post lol. Anyways yeah zero is lining up the weapon to hit what you're aiming at and done (constantly) in the rear. Adjusting for range is done in the field. ACOGs don't adjust and the M68 (red dot) is for close quarters. So basically you're not adjusting for range unless you have an MG, sniper rifle, or iron sights. Even then combat usually takes place under 100m IIRC so it doesn't really matter unless you're on over watch, and even then you're likely to be within 300m. In all honestly though it would have been nice if we could actually zero the weapons. Sometimes it feels like my rounds aren't hitting right. I can put a dot on someone, crouch, hold breath, fire, and still miss from around 100m some times. I don't know if nervousness is modeled or something but I feel like I'm more accurate IRL than in game sometimes!

I'm tempted to make a troll post but I don't feel like it. The forums would probably be divided anyways because game play would be different. Personally I don't see any problem with passing this game on to console so long as it's not designed for console first. I also doubt the community would go straight to hell.

I'd like to see more realism in the campaign. I hear we'll be getting PEQs which is good because IRL we all have them (night vision lasers). Other than more realistic tracer loads and a way to customize weapons in the editor (pick scope/irons, addons, etc) and some AI improvements the biggest thing would be more concentration on vehicles. Be nice if we could laze targets to get range then fire like IRL, full interiors on all vehicles, maybe with trackIR support so you could look around thought that's honestly more flash. Some IR stuff in vehicles, maybe even a scope even though those things are heavy. Scope on the 240B would be nice. With a scope I could hit targets 800m out with one bullet no problem. Areas would shorter grass too, it's a pain being a machine gunner because the damn grass is everywhere. If you can't go prone you can't shoot. Helicopters that don't fly like cars with better collective control so it isn't just descend/hover/ascend, you know, feels more like a helicopter. Editor improvements to make things like assigning artillery and calling in air strikes easier. I'm sure I could find more but still it's pretty good where it's at. I guess if I could just have one it would be the AI, though even there the AI has surprised me. Put Russians on one side of a small town and Marines on the other, put yourself as a civilian on a hill top and you'll see them flank each other and fight for dominance on the town. Usually the side that gets flanked first is toast.

Signed, really thought this would have happened by now.

I don't get it. You take the most realistic combat game of the year, then ask they take down the realism and add aliens, and finally get mad when people don't agree with you. I mean I understand people aren't going to agree all the time, I wanted more realism and was getting the same kind of responses. Still if you imagine this game as a train track, with realism in the direction it's heading, less realism in the reverse, you're asking to go both backwards and up at the same time. It just doesn't make sense. Even then the key to this game is its realism right? So lets do a quick experiment. Lets image that the aliens were only 100 years more advanced than us (a stretch but lets say space travel is actually incredibly easy and we're just missing the obvious). Now, lets take that 100 years and apply it to us and see what we come up with. What was happening about 100 years ago, WW1 right? Tanks and air are primitive, no missiles, your average soldier has a bolt action rifle, I mean 1 modern division with unlimited ordinance and air attachments probably would have won the war for either side. It wouldn't even be fun to fight against. You and your line of guys in a muddy trench with a water cooled Vickers and a bunch of bolt action rifles vs a squad calling in A-10s. You'd just be devastated. I guess what I'm saying is if you make it realistic you're most likely going to have to fight against orbital weapons that can strike anywhere, vastly superior night vision, full armor, god only knows what kind of optics and weapons. Our 2025 infantry system is supposed to have missiles that can track people. We're not even talking about robots, which I can almost guarantee 100 years from now will be a mainstay. Hell within 15 years we'll probably start seeing more use of them just like how unmanned drones have exploded in use. Look at how quick then went from observation to weapons platforms. You also have to expect complete game changers just like tanks, air power, rockets, etc have all been. That or you could make it unrealistic in which case why would you ask to change a game where the realism is its selling factor. I hope you can see what I'm saying, and why what you're saying makes better sense for a different game. You don't goto FASA and ask that the next battle tech be about subs rather than giant robots.

I've actually given it thought. The biggest problem is the lack of polish I have. My missions mostly consist of some units defending an area and other group coming though, at usually platoon level. Lots of infantry, minimal armor, and almost no air. There's no briefing, you can't win, no trigger, just units on the ground doing their thing. I suppose if I get my scripting down a bit more and get off my lazy ass and do some briefings I'll upload some. That's something I'll give to the official missions. That first engagement in that heli mission where you fly over and call in the enemy to engage was really well done. While I'm not trying to get at that level (though I would love to get voices in there), my missions at current are very unpolished.

So you're the guy? Well congratulation on the missions, they are well done and clearly people enjoy them, but they're not what I was expecting. I think you can get the same 'Hollywood' feel and make for a more realistic mission. There are many examples in the current wars in Iraq and Afganistan alone. Marines have been surrounded by the enemy, pinned down over night in a building, Army bases have been overun by taliban, etc. To be honest WWII, Kosovo, Georgia, etc would probably be an even better guides because we're looking at a European nation. I'm sure there are many war stories out there that would make for interesting scenarios. Then again I'm clearly a minority here, so I guess keep doing what you're doing because you're clearly doing it right. I just figured things would be different, but in all honesty I buy the game for the editor. For me the campaign is just icing on the cake so to speak. Anyways good luck and despite my complaints you guys make an excellent product and I'm looking forwards to the next release (I really want to get back into a Bradley).